Elephant - Thank you for the link to the Buddhist site - I have been reading
Buddhist literature for several years now and I found this article very
informative, concise and to the point. Thank you for providing the link.
One note - I was unable to connect to the secondary link you listed on
several attempts - is it available?
Marty J
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of elephant
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 1:21 PM
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Plato's "essences"/Forms
I've enjoyed comparing Prisig's veiw of truth to Plato's. Any one
interested in my Platonic 'two levels of truth' thesis (that there is
jamesian truth as a variety of the good, and then some higher kind of truth
which goes beyond), should also compare the Buddhist perspective on Lila's
predicament at the end of 'Lila':
http://www.buddsoc.org.uk/world_s.htm
Perhaps a short 'taster' to get you clicking:
>
> In the Buddhist scriptures we are often told that our everyday world is
like a
> dream, that neither we nor the world around us is 'ultimately' real. This
is
> of course different from saying that our life is a dream or that nothing
we
> experience is real. Nevertheless some sort of distinction is being made
> between the kind of reality we ordinarily ascribe to our lives and the
kind of
> reality they 'ultimately' have.
>
> In Mahayana Buddhism the distinction is drawn between two 'levels' of
truth or
> reality. There is first the level, of Samsara, of ordinary reality within
> which we make all the distinctions we do make, including those between
what,
> in an ordinary way, is real and what is not (for example, the distinction
> between mirages and real pools of water). And then there is the level of
> 'ultimate reality', about which little can be said except that the view
from
> 'ultimate reality' is an 'enlightened' view, a way of seeing and being in
> which there is freedom from Dukkha.
> The notion of this 'ultimate reality' can seem very elusive, abstract,
> philosophical; and its philosophical elucidation has indeed taxed the
brains
> of the greatest Buddhist thinkers from Nagarjuna onwards. But it is not
just a
> philosopher's notion; it is central to the experience of the Buddhist
path.
The author then goes on to explain something about that path in the clearest
way. Prisig was all for treating buddhism seriously as philosophy, as was
Iris Murdoch, so I assume that there are some here for whom this is a
relevant link and and an informative comparison. Once again, a real jewel
this when you read it:
http://www.buddsoc.org.uk/world_s.htm
Afterwards, for a briefish exploration of Murdoch's early thoughts on some
of this, try my own article on her metaphysics, the last of those listed at:
http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol4/index.html
all the best,
- Elephant
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:58 BST